Meta

UK Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable

“The issue here is the claim that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050). The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable. Possibly there is some other basis for the claim, but that seems extremely implausible: the claim does not seem to have any valid basis.”

The answer is “D. All of the Above”. I noticed that first some started backing away from the Catastrophic in CAGW. Now others are hedging their position on the “A”. I think the “G” is in trouble as well as the most committed (note the attempt at a pun) focus on local events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, etc. to show that climate change is real and that we ought to do as they say to save the world.

Howdy friends
I’d hold off even on the GW of GW. Some stations have shown an upward trend, some level or down, but the measurements over the last two hundred years are hard to compare in any valid way. If you’re talking about a fraction of a degree Celsius when you’re comparing different equipment, different data sets, changes in terrain, etc. then you’re in very fuzzy territory.
Of course climate (or climates, as Gamecock prefers) do change over time because of a lot of factors. Human production of CO2 may be a very small factor as well as human production of other heat-affecting elements like aerosols, methane and water vapor. The evidence that humans affect the overall planet weather system is flimsy at best. Considering how much of it is cherry-picked or outright fabricated, I’d say non-existent.

This admission is colossally significant. It throws out the A in AGW. All we’re left with it GW, and since GW of the past 150 years has been an unmitigated boon to all carbon-based lifeforms, we can not only say “so far so good,” but also “a little more, even better.”